About the counter:
If you change in Overpass turbo
node["access"="permit"];
way["access"="permit"];
relation["access"="permit"]
to
node[permit];
way[permit];
relation[permit];
it works fine.
2018.08.14. 21:20 keltezéssel, Szem írta:
Thanks Javier and Warin!
Always the first thought
Thanks Javier and Warin!
Always the first thought is the best...
(Roads found in Waterworks area -access=private, bicycle=permit,
foot=permit)
(Roads on the embankments - access=private, motor_vehicle=permit,
foot=yes, bicycle=yes)
(Roads in wildlife reserve - access=private, motor_vehicle=perm
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 2:17 AM, Kevin Kenny
wrote:
>
> OK, we're officially off in the weeds here.
>
landcover=weeds + access=yes?
--
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Some examples might help?
If tagged
access=no
with no following access tags then it means
no one has access.
If tagged
access=no
with the following access tag
foot=permit
then it means
no one has access,
except
if on foot .. then they have to have a permit to have access.
If tagged
access
Hello Szem
No. That way is just the opposite of the intended meaning. It says that
every body need a permit (for example cars) and hikers and riders can
access freely. The previous one was ok. Access=no (or private as someones
suggest) + transportmode=permit
El lun., 13 ago. 2018 20:54, Szem esc
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 6:01 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
> On 14 August 2018 at 07:24, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>> maybe the way wasn’t impassable before and now it is, I don’t see why it
>> would be nonsense to state it. Maybe the way is still passable, but you‘ll
>> die of nuclear radi
On 14/08/18 02:09, Kevin Kenny wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 11:07 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
On 13. Aug 2018, at 14:35, Paul Allen wrote:
All I was attempting here was to point out that access=no is different from
access=private and can have valid uses. It's not crazy to have both. It
On 14 August 2018 at 07:24, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> maybe the way wasn’t impassable before and now it is, I don’t see why it
> would be nonsense to state it. Maybe the way is still passable, but you‘ll
> die of nuclear radiation? There are infinite possibilities why a way or
> area would
sent from a phone
> On 13. Aug 2018, at 20:32, Szem wrote:
>
> OK?
I would not set a general very restrictive access tag together with a lot of
specific permissions, as it is likely you will thereby accidentally exclude
some means of transport you didn’t think about. Just omit the generic
sent from a phone
> On 13. Aug 2018, at 18:09, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>
> is still pretty nonsensical - what is the
> point of mapping a way that's impassable to everything? When is a way
> not a way?
maybe the way wasn’t impassable before and now it is, I don’t see why it would
be nonsense to
2018.08.13. 20:32 keltezéssel, Szem írta:
Tags in summary:
- Roads found in Waterworks area:
access=private, bicycle=permit, foot=permit, horse=no
-Roads on the embankments:
access= private, motor_vehicle=permit, foot=yes, horse=yes, bicycle=yes,
access=permit, foot=yes, horse=yes, bicycle=yes
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 5:09 PM, Kevin Kenny
wrote:
>
> 'access=no' standing alone (not 'transport_mode=no', not 'access=no
> transport_mode=something') is still pretty nonsensical - what is the
> point of mapping a way that's impassable to everything? When is a way
> not a way? It does indeed ma
Tags in summary:
- Roads found in Waterworks area:
access=private, bicycle=permit, foot=permit, horse=no
-Roads on the embankments:
access= private, motor_vehicle=permit, foot=yes, horse=yes, bicycle=yes,
- Roads in wildlife conservation areas:
access= private, motor_vehicle=permit, bicycle=perm
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 11:07 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> > On 13. Aug 2018, at 14:35, Paul Allen wrote:
> >
> > All I was attempting here was to point out that access=no is different from
> > access=private and can have valid uses. It's not crazy to have both. It
> > may be rare to have
sent from a phone
> On 13. Aug 2018, at 14:35, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> All I was attempting here was to point out that access=no is different from
> access=private and can have valid uses. It's not crazy to have both. It
> may be rare to have access=no, but any time
> you see a sign "No vehi
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 2:34 AM, Kevin Kenny
wrote:
I guess where we split is that I tend to tag these odd cases based on
> the use that they currently support, and not what they legally are or
> may have been.
>
The only difference is I'd evaluate it on a case-by-case basis until I'd
encountere
On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 7:01 PM Paul Allen wrote:
> However contrived, there will be cases where the bridge itself does not
> permit access to motor vehicles even though
> the way leading up to it does. As in "no vehicles beyond this point."
>
> Now I think about it, I've recently seen a road, w
On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 11:28 PM, Kevin Kenny
wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 5:49 PM Paul Allen wrote:
> > Consider a bridge which is structurally strong enough for pedestrians,
> cyclists and maybe even horses but which would
> > collapse if a vehicle drove over it. The distinction between "
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 7:48 AM, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> Consider a bridge which is structurally strong enough for pedestrians,
> cyclists and maybe even horses but which would
> collapse if a vehicle drove over it. The distinction between "private"
> and "no" for vehicles then becomes clear. Eve
On 13 August 2018 at 08:28, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>
> Except that I didn't map it, because I didn't attempt the crossing.
> I'd already fallen in the [expletive deleted] river once that day, and
> that was one time too many.
>
& that water looks coold!
Thanks
Graeme
__
On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 5:49 PM Paul Allen wrote:
> Consider a bridge which is structurally strong enough for pedestrians,
> cyclists and maybe even horses but which would
> collapse if a vehicle drove over it. The distinction between "private" and
> "no" for vehicles then becomes clear. Even
On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 10:43 PM, Kevin Kenny
wrote:
>
> This is where I continue to be confused.
>
I am confused by many things, these days. But not by this.
>
> Presumably the land owner can always access, which has made the
> distinction between 'private' and 'no' unclear to me. By your
> d
On 13 August 2018 at 07:36, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> On 12. Aug 2018, at 23:30, Graeme Fitzpatrick
> wrote:
>
> In cases when only official vehicles (National Parks, Water supply etc)
> are allowed, I've always called that vehicles=no, working on " *no* – No
> access for the general public
On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 5:37 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> If there are people who can access, you should prefer “private” over no.
>
> IMHO we should remove “for the general public” in the above definition. Where
> did you find this sentence?
This is where I continue to be confused.
Presumab
sent from a phone
> On 12. Aug 2018, at 23:30, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> In cases when only official vehicles (National Parks, Water supply etc) are
> allowed, I've always called that vehicles=no, working on " no – No access for
> the general public."?
If there are people who can acces
On 13 August 2018 at 06:50, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 9:48 AM Szem wrote:
> > I begun to use the "permit" tag, what is the correct tagging for these
> categories?
> >
> > - Roads found in Waterworks area (You could get permit only for biking
> and walking, no cars except for
Oops, posted from wrong return address...
-- Forwarded message -
From: Kevin Kenny
Date: Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 9:48 AM Szem
27 matches
Mail list logo
